Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the opinion is published, non-binding, requires a key credential, is free with no cap, is answered when made, and cites its authority (Practice Direction 1 §5, Rule 7.3). It does not describe latency or the treatment of submitted facts/evidence.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose and key constraints are front-loaded and the sentences each carry information (scope, non-binding nature, credential, cost, source). The first-person framing is slightly unusual but not wasteful; minor redundancy in restating the subject of the request.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For an 8-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers cost, credential, and the shape of the answer but omits how facts, evidence, protocol, and questions are used and what the published opinion returns. Adequate but with clear gaps for a moderately complex tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

None of the eight parameters (conduct, questions, facts, named, title, argument, evidence, protocol) are explained in the description. Schema coverage is 75%, below the 80% baseline, so the description needed to compensate for the remaining gaps and adds essentially no parameter meaning beyond 'planned action' loosely implying conduct.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource (ask a judge for a published advisory opinion on whether a planned action follows Peregrini's rules) and names the outcome categories (allowed / forbidden / conditional). It distinguishes itself from dispute resolution by noting it 'does not settle a dispute or bind a later judge', though it does not name a specific sibling tool.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives clear context (a planned/proposed action you want reviewed) and an explicit when-not ('It does not settle a dispute or bind a later judge'), which routes an agent away from using it as a dispute tool. No named alternatives such as ask_magistrate or call_for_judgment, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.